Jump to content

Talk:Islamofascism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Billbrock (talk | contribs) at 20:31, 2 September 2006 (fascism vs. totalitarianism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Votes for deletion
This article survived two votes for deletion. An archived record of these debates can be found here and here.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Previous discussions:

Meeting of Islamists and fascists during WWII
Wahhabism
Judgemental language
Talk:Islamofascism/Archive01#Aryan Nation material
SS photo
Definition of fascism
Proposed merger with Fascist (epithet)
how did this page get reduced to a collection if quotes?
Veiled censorship
Stop re-directing this article with neo-fascism or other non-sense
Blogs as sources
Please Stop Edit War!
Juan Cole and the 'F' word


Criticism of the term

Juan Cole and Joseph Sobran have been accused of anti-Semitism. It seems to me that assuming these accusations are true, they are biased sources and thus ineligible for use as sources here (unless we add some kind of clumsy qualifier like 'Joseph Sobran, who has associated with Holocaust deniers, says that...'.

On the other hand, it's impossible to *prove* that these people are anti-Semitic, since unless someone is quoted as saying 'I hate Jews' it's pretty much impossible to prove anti-Semitism in general. How should we handle a case of likely (but not necessarily provably) biased sources? Ken Arromdee 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to Joseph Sobran, but I believe the accusation against Juan Cole is largely bogus. In any case, the bias of sources is irrelevant because all sources are inherently biased. Cole and Sobran are both critics of the term Islamofascism, and their criticism is presented as such. Wikipedia articles dealing with controversial topics should not avoid biased sources, but rather attempt to present those different viewpoints with a neutral point of view. bcasterline t 16:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, I can't speak for Cole either, but it does seem like a strong case can be made that Sobran is an antisemite. Should we add that? IronDuke 23:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to speculate about his beliefs in an article that quotes him as just one of multiple examples. He is not the subject of the article, and his name links to his article if one wants to know more about him. Since "anti-Semitic" does not equal "pro-Muslim", I don't think it's relevant information either. bcasterline t 01:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sobran is notorious. Why are we citing such a marginal crank?--Cberlet 02:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add his quotation and I don't really know much about him. But, he has made a criticism which is not a marginal sentiment and is relevant to Islamofascism. I think it fits in the article well. bcasterline t 13:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the criticism is not a marginal sentiment, then surely you could find a non-biased source which makes that criticism, right? Ken Arromdee 16:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's tough, considering the term is a neologism, which is used almost exclusively by biased sources in a war of words. There has not been any respected scholarship on "Islamofascism" -- so there really aren't any non-biased sources. (In fact, I think that's a fundamental problem with this article, which I mentioned in a topic above somewhere: the only thing to present is two sides of a dispute.) But many other people have expressed the same sentiment as Sobran, including Albert Scardino, whom the article cites in a different context. To leave out the "it's propaganda" criticism would be, in my opinion, a glaring omission. bcasterline t 06:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If "there really aren't any non-biased sources", and if the "it's propaganda" criticism is only made from biased sources, then you *should* leave it out (or else leave it in, but mention that it is a criticism made only by biased sources).

Besides, there are different kinds of bias. It's one thing that someone criticizes the term because he's leftist. It's another thing that someone criticizes the term because he doesn't like Jews and sympathizes with fascists and Islamists because they don't like Jews either. Ken Arromdee

I don't agree. Being a syndicated columnist and writer of some repute, Sobran is a legitimate authority per WP:V. To preclude him from the article because you believe "he doesn't like Jews and sympathizes with fascists and Islamists" violates WP:OR
The original research rule applies to the content of the article, not to the decisions about what content to include. It isn't "original research" within the meaning of the rule to decide that a source is a biased source.
-- even if it's pretty clear that he's an anti-Semite, because that doesn't equate into pro-Muslim. Even if it did, though, I still don't see a reason for precluding him: it's a presentation of two viewpoints, and he has one. No matter his motivation.
The article does not present Sobran's quote as an accurate description of the use of "Islamofascism", merely a criticism of its use. It does the same for the other four quotes, which are also attributed to people who (being people) must have biases of their own. Again, there's been no real scholarship here, so "third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (to quote WP:V) are out of the question. bcasterline t 16:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sobran's argument purports to be supplying facts (Sobran's observations of how the term is used) and uses those facts as a basis for his criticism. Bias which may affect the accuracy of Sobran's facts, therefore, is relevant. Ken Arromdee 16:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you propose to do? I see three options:
  1. Remove the quotation because it's biased. If there's controversy surrounding Sobran's credibility, I'm all in favor of giving him the boot. But, unless you can find a suitable replacement, this is not an acceptable solution by me because it leaves one of the primary criticisms omitted.
  2. Remove all the quotations because they're all equally biased. None of them are from respected, peer-reviewed, non-biased sources. As a source, Sobran is no less legitimate than the others. In my opinion, this solution is even worse, although it's not as one-sided as #1. Remember that the WP:V standard is verifiability, not truth.
  3. Label Sobran an "anti-Semite" and maybe a "Muslim sympathizer". This solution violates WP:OR and, even though it's not his article, possibly WP:BLP.
Any other ideas? As I mentioned above: considering the quotations are presented as perspectives, not facts, I personally believe these are all unnecessary. -- bcasterline • talk 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest 1. Remove the quotation because it's biased. If you can find the criticism made by a non-biased source, use that. If it's really "one of the primary criticisms," then you should have no trouble finding the non-biased source. If you can't find one, it never was a primary criticism in the first place and *should* be removed.

Actually, "biased source" is the wrong phrase. You're right in that every source will have bias of some kind. But there's a difference between being, say, a Democrat, and just hating Jews, even though both of them are biased. You shouldn't quote a Jew-hater about Jews or about a subject directly influenced by his attitudes towards Jews. Ken Arromdee 17:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-Semite" does not necessarily mean "pro-Muslim".
But the former often leads to the latter. Ken Arromdee 23:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And even if it did: Why does being a pro-Muslim writer preclude someone from offering an opinion on Islamofascism? You concede that they all have biases. The origin of their bias does not matter -- the effect is exactly the same. -- bcasterline • talk 18:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who's pro-Muslim *because he hates Jews* should be disqualified from being quoted in an encyclopedia article about Islamofascism. Just because everyone has some bias doesn't mean that all biases are created equal or that it is impossoble to reject a source on the basis that he is biased in an exceptionally bad way. Ken Arromdee 23:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, Islamofascists are "individuals who use Islam as an excuse to behave like fascists" and its purpose is therefore to distinguish between terrorists and mainstream Muslims. The term is identical to "militant Muslims" and "Islamic fundamentalists." Bill Levinson 17:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic fundamentalism

The article Islamic fundamentalism seems to be along similar lines to this... Maybe the two should be merged? Or is there some big difference about where a muslim nation stops being big on religion and becomes islamofascist I'm missing?--Josquius 19:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the distinction is (as far as I understand it) is that Islamic fundamentalism is a very strict interpretation of Islam and forcing everyone to follow the religion in a very strict way. Islamofascism is more of people using Islam as a false front to enact fascism, which is their real goal. I guess it all boils down to the goal - is it to get people to follow the religion in a strict way, or is it to form a fascist country? Even with that description, it's kind of ambiguous. I guess think of it this way: It's a circle. At the 12:00 position is moderate, "normal" Islam. At 6:00 is the worst opposite of that. Islamofascism and Islamic fundamentalism are at the 5:00 and 7:00 positions. I don't know, that's the best I can figure to explain it, as I understand it, anyway. Hope it helps somewhat. --69.161.146.61 06:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, there are theoretical reasons why the two articles should be separate. They are not the same phenomenon nor are they particularly compatible (it depends on how loose one's definition of facism is, however). Second, there are cultural reasons why the Wiki articles are separate. These include the fact that "Islamic facism" is controversial while "Islamic fundamentalism" is a bit less perjorative. This point really expands to a large body of Western scholarship that does not use "facism" to describe interpretations of Islam (even political interpretations). Even when it is used, it is rarely emphasized and developed. Some call this a "liberal bias", others good scholarship. --Vector4F 15:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hey folks, sorry if this is not exactly in the right place but... I humbly recommend keeping it simple. Don't try to over intellectuallize it. It means somewhat different things to different people (or nothing at all) and at this point that interpretation is somewhat in a state of flux.

For example: To me it represents a theocratic totalitarian ideology, which substitutes a fanatic interpretation of Islam for fanatic nationalism/racism as a justification. And there is a component that in my view includes a hegemonic zeal to actively export that theocratic totalitarianism at any cost and by any means necessary. A "Greater Islamic Reich", if you will permit the allusion.

In my view it is a separate term from "Islamic Fundamentalism" in that "Islama(o)fascism" was deliberately coined to allude to the similarities in the means and ends of the two root ideologies (Islamic Fundamentalism as a theocracy, and Fascism); a rhetorical reflection after at least 10 years experience in the west with fallout of the "Islamic Revolution".

Now... will that satisfy some poli-sci post graduate? Probably not. Or perhaps its like pornography, you can't quite define it, but you know it when you see it. The Taliban, Al Qaeda and the current government of Iran fit the bill in my view. What about the Fascist/Corporatism component, etc? To me its just splitting hairs to undermine or belittle the term. As Hitchens said, its "Fascism with an Islamic face". That's what the term represents. If people are offended or have political science or theological objections, it's beside the point.

So it seems therefore that if Christopher Hitchens or Khalid Duran or Stephen Schwartz or whoever coined the term, then that's what it is, for better or worse. Appropriate to stick with those definitions/attributions until such time as there is a clear consensus of some other nuance.

I would suggest thinking about the matter-of-fact characterization of Islamafascism as a political "epithet". While technically this is correct, "epithet" can have the connotaion as defamatory (as in slander or libel). Whether or not the term is defamatory depends on which side of the fence you are on. PJNevada --71.9.97.212 06:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move

User:Humus sapiens has suggested that the article Islamofascism be moved to Islamofascism (epithet). Do other editors agree with this proposal? CJCurrie 03:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we not? I hate these sorts of "shudder parens" that are coming into vogue. Either delete the article or leave it. The word is what it is. Let the reader decide how to interpet it. IronDuke 03:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I also oppose the move. CJCurrie 03:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose it but I think he's already done it. --Coroebus 06:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He did, but I moved it back before calling the current vote. CJCurrie 06:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that move would really only be merited if there existed a version of this word that wasn't an epithet. Netscott 08:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per article-naming conventions, parentheses are only used to disambiguate between identically-named articles, not to clarify an article's meaning or topic when there's nothing else to confuse it with. Hundreds of Wikipedia's articles are about "epithets"; if we used (epithet) at the end of every one, it would be unmanageably cumbersome, and if we didn't use (epithet) at the end of every one, only for this one, it would be horribly biased. The italicized "This article is about..." notice is more than sufficient for clarifying exactly what this article is about. -Silence 09:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just put the pertinent information in the intro summary, rather than the article title. If there is a problem with the "Islamofacism" title, adding qualifiers doesn't solve this (a better article, however, would). --Vector4F 15:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am wondering why nodody voted at a similar case Israeli apartheid (epithet). Humus's suggestion is interesting in a sense that whether to follow one rule (or guideline) or none. Cheers -- Szvest 15:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
I've provided the argument for moving Israeli apartheid (epithet) back to its correct title, Israeli apartheid, at Talk:Israeli apartheid (epithet). Hopefully the wheels of change will start relatively soon, now that Islamofascism is back to its own correct title. A third article, Wall of shame (epithet), has also been mentioned at the village pump; hopefully there aren't many more hidden out there to fix. -Silence 20:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Silence. --maru (talk) contribs 19:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Savage

"Radio talk show host Michael Savage has used the term "Islamofascism" frequently on his program. The context suggests the invocation of Islam to justify fascist-like activities."

Michael Savage, even on his own radio talkshow "The Savage Nation," takes credit for coining the term "Islamofascist." I haven't heard the term ever used before he started using it on his radio show, but I could be wrong.

Is this exclusively a right-wing buzzword?

Islamofascism seems to be a contradiction in terms on the face of it, as Islamism is a stateless movement with no connection to corporate capitalism, and fascism implies a tight connection between a state and corporations.

I hear the well known demagogue Rush Limbaugh use this term all the time in his usual ignorant manner, and I have come to feel it is a smokescreen to distract from his own and the right-wing's overt fascist tendencies to take over the USA and make it a fascist country.

Islamic fascism

This article is about the political epithet "Islamofascism"... for "Islamic fascism" please see this section of Neofascism and religion thanks. (→Netscott) 22:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well-spotted! -- Szvest 23:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush near-use

Bush used "Islamic fascists" in his reaction to the foiled British airliner attack, which seems to have been run widely in the media in the last day or so... AnonMoos 10:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to the 'Examples of use in public discourse' section. --duncan 10:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also previous point (#Islamic fascism).

Note that Islamic fascism now redirects to Neofascism and religion.

Islamic fascist also currently redirects to Neofascism and religion.

I have no preference but several options could be explored, as far as I'm concerned:

  • Move the Bush quotes to Neofascism and religion#Islam — however, if Bush (or his advisors) intended "neofascism", he'd have said Islamic neofascists, no?
  • Have a separate article on Islamic fascism, instead of a redirect, if reliable sources document the use and meaning of this expression (note that several of the external links now on the "Islamofascism" page speak about "Islamic fascism", and not about "Islamofascism" - if it would be Original Research to consider these as synonyms, that's an indication that starting a separate page would maybe be a good idea)
  • Explain both related concepts ("Islamofascism" and "Islamic fascism") on the same page, making one of the two a redirect to the other. There are other Wikipedia pages where a concept redirects to a page on a related concept, and both concepts are explained on a single page. Think e.g. Fin de siècle - turn of the century: the intro of that page explains that connotations of both concepts only partly overlap.
  • Start a new page Islam and fascism and have all related concepts redirect to that. There is however a discouragement for the use of such page name at wikipedia:naming conventions#Use of "and" --Francis Schonken 11:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem be highly knowledgeable about wiki-lawyering, but you don't seem to have much grasp of the relevant linguistics involved... According to your principles, "Franco-American relations" and "French-American relations" would have to be two completely separate articles! AnonMoos 15:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one who needs convincing. [1] [2] --Francis Schonken 15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos, this article is about the term "Islamofascism", is that difficult to understand? (→Netscott) 15:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD should be rather enlightening about why there is an article on the term "islamofascism". (→Netscott) 16:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Bush near-quote deserves to be here, not at Neofascism and religion#Islam. Even though he didn't use the exact word islamofascist/islamofascism, I think it's a fine point to say using 'islamic fascists' means something different. Is this article about the word or what it means? --duncan 08:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duncan, have you read this AfD yet? (→Netscott) 08:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what's your point? --duncan 09:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this article is for the actual term. For the concept of "islamic fascism" there's Neofascism and religion#Islam. The title of this section is "near use" that's like saying "a near pregnancy" (either a woman is pregnant or she's not)... User:Francis Schonken makes a good point here... if there's a need then an article on the concept of "islamic fascism" should be created... and the content from Neofascism and religion moved to it. (→Netscott) 09:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't see why this is important, we thankfully don't create articles for every made up word and/or phrase that bush creates. This is no more, or less, of a justification for this article existing--64.12.116.137 20:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hitchens citations

I've removed most references to Hitchens as the ones I removed didn't have him using the term. What I would suggest for those wanting Hitchens cited in this article is to either find references of his utilization of the term or further references to others' usage of the term similar to this article. (→Netscott) 19:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This too might be a good start for including citations of Hitchens and the term "islamofascism". (→Netscott) 20:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamofascism

It seems a pleonasm to me. Every monotheistic religion only supports 1 Leader, that is God (or Allah in this case). Add the punishments against traitors of that particular religion, the fact that non-religious people are inferior to religious people etc. And consider the name of Islam, meaning "Submission", and you get the full story. A muslim can be peaceful despite of Islam, never because of it... Pity. Torero 00:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torero! This is not a blog!!!! Please discuss stuff related to how to improve the article and that's it. I see that you are "new" but seems that you got an agenda. Please leave those kinds of comments out of this respectable place. -- Szvest 00:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This certainly is not a blog. But that doesn't mean only Islamohorny people may react to it. Respect is not dependent on pro- or anti-Islam (or neutral). I hope you will recognise that. Cheers, Torero 00:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you recognize it is not a blog than why are you blogging anyway? You should respect this place first before an "islamohorny" (in other words me) could respect such a rant! -- Szvest 00:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the makings of a fine blog, left-field commentary based upon original research (otherwise known as "one's own ideas"). Good call Szvest. :-) (→Netscott) 01:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Torero is welcomed to contribute. However, i'm not convienced w/ his first day show. -- Szvest 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

users of this term tend to be be fascist?

Perhaps this goes along with criticism, but it seems a specific issue. Use of this term appears to come primarily from the far right of current political movements. This means that those who are using the term are the most likely to be accused of fascism themselves. This means that this rhetoric follows a common thread of false rebellion against one's own core values. -- M0llusk 05:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if your intention is to discuss this matter but if so this isn't the place to do so. If you have reliable and verifiable sources that are saying this then by all means add these ideas while citing them. (→Netscott) 08:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

original research

It might be appropriate label the unsourced statements as original research. The statement of the definition I understand for islamofascist is based on common knowledge and its use can be found on these blogs[3][4][5]. (can provide more). A published source with this usage includes the the National Review:[6] "...Hitler had his Reich, Osama wants his Caliphate...". Mrdthree 12:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of "islamofascism" in that National Review article. Remember this Wikipedia article is about the actual term. (→Netscott) 20:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should I ignore the comment about some writers given the plethora of bloggers[7][8]? Mrdthree 22:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell the text you're working on would be better suited to idea of the concept as explained in Neofascism and religion#Islam. There's some talk above about starting an article (using content from there and elsewhere) entitled Islamic fascism, that might be an even better option given that the President of the United States is utilizing the phrase "Islamic fascists". (→Netscott) 23:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what this article is intended to do, but if it means to discuss Islamofascism, it should offer or mention a definition that is in fairly wide use.Mrdthree 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


judeofascism

The inclusion of the comment on judeofascism seems a little petlulant. This article is not about making everythign else balanced. This article is valid and needed beacuase unlike the peripheral use of judeofascism, Islamofacism is in core poltical use by world leaders and media. It is also a current affairs issue. For this reason I am deleting this paragraph and would agree that perhaps the inclusion of the term exist on its own merits, in its own article, just asother types of facism should. It is however not relevant to discuss here. This is not a score chart to give political discussions parity.--Peej 04:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Peej. If Zionism has been notably compared to fascism, the Zionism page might be a place to mention that. Personally I haven't run across the term judeofascism before, and while it may be a great pity that the term hasn't achieved currency, this isn't the place to ascribe currency to it that it doesn't have. St. Jimmy 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Totalitarianism

Islamic Totalitarianism is an article on a very similar subject to this. Nothing links to it. Perhaps editors of this would like to look at that. Drett 18:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why so many examples?

Do we really need eleven examples of use in public discourse? A few (maybe four or five?) quotations are helpful, but most of these don't add any information to the article, except the name and role of the person at the end of the quote. Those names can easily be summarized by saying, "Other politicians and writers who have used the term are...". Clayoquot Sound 06:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has commented on this in the past three days, so I've reduced the number of full examples to four, and summarized the remainder at the end of the section. Clayoquot Sound 05:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a more general word -Theofacism

Is there not some way to place this with other Theocratic movements and ideology. There seem to be many variants of Islamic theocratic extreamism, based around Sunni/Shia divisions as well as some more esoteric than I can understand, but other than variations of Dogma they seem to differ little in policy from Kahanists, the several flavors of Dominionists, Moonies, and many smaller cults.

Though agressively atheists, the unitary nature, and death penalty for "apostacy" to their fantasy pastoral vision, the Kmer Rouge was extreamly similar to these groups in many primary ways. Dragonwlkr 16:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mention in the news

FYI, this article and an editing dispute on it are mentioned in the article What Is 'Islamofascism'? by Stephen Schwartz. After a paragraph explaining how he coined the term, he follows with another describing "a long and demeaning colloquy" in which the wiki article ended up attributing Malise Ruthven, he states "I do not care much, these days, about Wikipedia and its misapprehensions, or obsess over acknowledgements of my work.". - BT 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Fascism page

The Islamic Fascism page and several others were the subject of lengthy and heated debates, numerous attempts to delete the pages, POV wars, numerous attempts to rename the pages, etc. These discussions are therefore on a number of pages going back over a year. Most recently there has been a discussion on Islamofascism, although even that page has had several names. Almost all of the text on the Islamic Fascism page that was recently revived already had been moved to either Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. The very outdated and redundant page was simply switched back on by deleting the redirect. Therefore almost the entire page was redundant. There was no serious attempt to engage editors in a discussion on either Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. There was no substantative discussion over several weeks--I waited to see if there was a serious dicussion. There was not. POV page forks are a violation of Wiki policy. Any editror can do what I did. I have no intention of trying to suppress claims about Islam and fascism, and in fact have written scholarly articles where I argue some forms of militant Islam are indeed forms of theocratic or clerical fascism. At the same time, I was just quoted in Newsweek saying that the term "Islamofascism" creeps me out. Over time, the two pages Islamofascism (on the term) and Neofascism and religion (on the contemporary debate), along with a few pages that mention the Grand Mufti and the Phalangists, have been the best way to keep this topic from turning, once again, into an endless POV war. If people want to have this discussion here, that's fine, but it is not a useful procedure to launch a discussion on an inactive redirect page.--Cberlet 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Cberlet -- thanks for bringing some much-needed perspective to this. This conflict mirrors one in the English language itself, and in American political culture. It's important, and I hope editors are willing to have a meaningful discussion to this page to address it responsibly. What, if I may ask, do people feel we should do here? BYT 12:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia government and islamofascism

I see that user:SlimVirgin reverted my edits without motivation. I would like to request her to give this motivation. Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 16:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Here's the edit; I think you mean 'without explanation.' She may have avoided giving you an explanation because the reason this doesn't belong in the article seems pretty obvious on its face.
If I were to offer an explanation for this revert, which I very much support, it would be this: while the passage in question makes a lot of noise about "promoting" Islamofasists, it never refers to the government of Saudi Arabia as an Islamofascist regime. Nobody seems to know what would actually constitute such a regime, but let's leave that problem aside, as it doesn't seem to stop anyone on Fox News. Not a lot of fascist monarchies out there. BYT 17:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State capitalism is central to fascism, not to totalitarianism

Fascism was (is) totalitarian, but all totalitarian ideologies are not fascist ideologies. "Islamototalitarianism" ain't catchy, but it'd be more accurate. The word "islamofascism" is despicable precisely because it muddies our thinking & replaces reason with emotional appeals. Billbrock 20:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamofascism&oldid=73453469"